Conclusion: The Second Appeal is allowed, with no costs. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.88 of 2002, which reversed the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit for specific performance, is set aside. (!) [21000950960017][21000950960019] The Trial Court's findings are confirmed: the registered sale agreement (Ex.A1) lacks veracity, as mere registration does not establish the true circumstances of its execution, and oral evidence is admissible under principles permitting proof of facts invalidating the document, such as it being a sham or intended as a mortgage rather than a sale.[21000950960017][21000950960015][21000950960012] (!) The plaintiff, a government servant, failed to demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform, having sent a notice claiming willingness on 27.10.1997 without prior government permission (applied for only on 06.07.1999 and granted on 04.11.1999), and did not approach the court with clean hands by suppressing material facts.[21000950960017][21000950960005][21000950960016] (!) (!) (!) Specific performance, being discretionary equitable relief, is denied.[judgement_subject][21000950960017] (!) However, the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.30,000 from the defendants (acknowledged as due in the defendant's reply notice, consistent with the mortgage version), with interest at 9% per annum from the date of plaint.[21000950960019][21000950960005][21000950960018] Connected M.P.No.1 of 2006 is closed. (!)